Editorial Policy
PeptideStacks.co.uk is a UK-based research-literacy platform. This page describes how we create content, how we handle uncertainty, what we publish, and — equally importantly — what we will not publish.
Our editorial approach
Every page is written to summarise published evidence — peer-reviewed literature, regulatory documents, and clinical trial registries — and to make the limitations of that evidence visible. We do not write “how to use” guidance for research peptides or unapproved compounds, and we do not personalise advice to individual readers.
Our goal is research literacy: helping a careful reader understand what is, and is not, known about a given peptide or combination, how confident they should be in published claims, and where uncertainty lies.
Evidence-first approach
Content prioritises primary sources where possible. We prefer PubMed-indexed papers, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, EU CTR), regulatory documents (MHRA, EMA, FDA), and high-quality systematic reviews. Marketing material, vendor claims, and forum reports are not treated as evidence. See our citation standards.
Evidence grading
Every stack, peptide monograph, and major comparison page carries an evidence grade (A–X). The grade is conservative by default: most peptides on this site sit in the C–D range because their evidence base is predominantly preclinical, and almost all combinations sit no higher than C because direct combination evidence is rare. See our evidence grading methodology.
Review and update process
Every page displays its last-updated and last-reviewed date. Pages are reviewed when material new evidence appears in the published literature, when the UK regulatory position changes, or when a reader submits a correction (see corrections policy).
How we handle uncertainty
Where evidence is weak, contested, or limited to a single laboratory, we say so plainly. We will not promote a claim to “evidence-based” on the strength of a single in vitro study, a single rodent model, or unreplicated findings. Where two pieces of evidence conflict, we describe both and explain the methodological reasons they may diverge.
Why we avoid personalised recommendations
Most peptides discussed on PeptideStacks are not approved medicines in the UK. Personalised dosing, sourcing, or self-administration advice would be inappropriate and could be unsafe. Our content describes published-study context, not personalised instruction. For health concerns, readers should consult a qualified, registered healthcare professional.
What we do not publish
- Self-administration protocols, cycles, or step-by-step use instructions.
- Personalised dosing or “recommended dose” figures.
- Sourcing, vendor recommendations, or import advice.
- Claims of safety for unapproved compounds.
- Medical, veterinary, or treatment recommendations.
- Before/after claims, user results, or testimonial-driven content.
- Promotional framing for prescription-only medicines.
- Anti-doping evasion advice or advice that circumvents WADA rules.
Editorial independence
PeptideStacks maintains relationships with sister sites — see our conflict of interest disclosure. Those relationships do not determine evidence grades, do not change which studies are cited, and do not soften safety or regulatory framing.